A Zionist & Conservative Blog

Main menu

Post navigation

Fungible Definition of “Who Is A Terrorist” Invariably Leads To Support of Islamists in Syria, Sudan & Elsewhere: When Politics/Ideology Trumps Morality…Embedded Policy Paper…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Moral confusion, inversion and perversion can only lead in one direction – the death of many innocents. Leaders conducting world business sans a moral barometer – in one way or another – aid all manner of atrocities. This is precisely why barbarism continues unabated all over the bleeding globe.

No sense in whitewashing their crimes. Yet….there are those who rise above others in their capacity to ignore evil.

Devils.

While one (tragically) expects third world dictators to hue to said immorality, few dare to contemplate the same depravity from the leader of the free world.

Not any more.

It is beyond obvious that the “Butcher of Damascus” has crossed the line, as did his late (but non-lamented) father years ago. The apple does not fall far from the (murderous) tree. Nevertheless, what appears less obvious to most observers is who the other side – the so called rebels – are.

Without going into too much detail here, there is plenty of impartial evidence to summarize that the rebels are, “six ways to Sunday”, Islamic based. Not only that, but the SyrianBrotherhood is a dominating force.

Now, does it take a geo-political expert to conclude, which horse the ‘Islamist-in-Chief’ is backing ?

Nope.

Without a doubt, the Syrian fighting must abate (too many innocents are being slaughtered to look away), but prudence advises – be careful which outcome you wish for !

“The support of the rebels in Syria, and the condemnation of Assad, by the Obama administration can only make one question as to why he is against this particular regimen, but not that of Omar al-Bashir, the tyrant who has been responsible for the deaths of millions through the Jihad that he has commenced against Christians and the non-Arab Muslims of Darfur.”

“In fact, Obama had at one point in time prevented Salva Kiir, president of South Sudan, from aiding rebels who wanted to topple al-Bashir’s regimen, and replace it with a secular government. According to former U.S. envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios:”

“On November 12, Agar, Hilu, and the three major rebel leaders in Darfur formally announced a new alliance to depose Bashir’s Islamist autocracy (the Sudanese affiliate of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood) and install a secular democratic pluralist state. Khartoum has accused the South Sudanese government of supplying the rebel alliance with weapons. The Obama administration repeated the charge. That led to an acrimonious meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and South Sudanese President Salva Kiir late last year. The South has since stopped weapons transfers.”

“Many will object to this by saying that not all of the rebels are Islamists, and while this must be acknowledged, the fact is that the moderates in Syria are not of the preponderating factor, and have quite a minuscule influence compared to the Islamic fundamentalists. Case in point, The leaders of the moderate Syrian National Council (SNC), who were funding the major rebel group in Syria, the Islamic fundamentalist Free Syrian Army, have now went into exile.”

“In March, 80,0000 Syrian Christians have been forced to flee their homes in Hamidiya and Bustan al-Diwan in Homs Province, on account of the terrorism from the Free Syrian Army.

“The West and Gulf states must not give finance to armed insurrectionists who are sectarian terrorists, most of whom are from al-Qaeda, according to a report presented to the German parliament”.

“In fact, only a few Syrians, according to Agnes Mariam, are even a part of the revolution:

“We don’t want to be invaded, as in Aleppo, by mercenaries, some of whom think they are fighting Israel. They bring terror, destruction, fear and nobody protects the civilians,” she said. There were “very few Syrians among the rebels”, she said. “Mercenaries should go home,” she said…….

“The opposition toward Assad by the Obama administration should only make us question his sentiments; for when rebels in Darfur had wished to topple the great holocauster Omar al-Bashir, who is responsible for the slaughter of more than half the number of the Jews whom Hitler had butchered, Obama had objected, and even had a meeting with the South Sudanese president to preclude his support for the attempted ousting of the tyrant.”

Them’s fighting words….but more than warranted. In fact, his comparison to Barack Hussein Obama’s inaction in the Sudan – while he meddles all over the region – and hisabsolute disinterest in stopping the slaughter of Christians is not speculative.

The following policy paper (written a few months ago) is not easy reading, but it will tie up some loose ends.

With Israel’s enemies encircling her borders to an unprecedented degree-with exponentially enhanced conventional and non-conventional weapons-coupled with a rapid rise of Islamic powers, (an outgrowth of the “Arab Spring”) the geo-political significance of South Sudan’s struggle against The President of the Republic of Sudan, Al-Bashir, necessitates an uncompromising western-based solution.

In conjunction, as is said, to the victor goes the spoils. As such, the South’s oil finds(about 75% of the proven reserves, vied over by Northern Sudan)will either fuel democratic rule, or Islamic expansionism. Needless to state, on humanitarian grounds alone, the South’s fight against Islamic conquest is a moral one for all who champion freedom.

Specifically, a brief historical overview of the conflict is as follows:

· *In 1989, Lieutenant General Omar Al-Bashir elicited a military coup, designating Hassan el-Turabi, a powerful pan-Arab Islamic fundamentalist as his Presidential front man. Nevertheless, in 1999, Al-Bashir consigned him to house arrest-up until 2003-when he was suddenly released.

· *In September 2001, due to certain “gestures” to the

West, the United Nations removed its 6 year old sanctions against the regime. However, the US officially designates Sudan as a terrorist state.

*In July 2002, a ceasefire convened between

Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and Al-Bashir’s regime, under the aegis of a 6 year power-sharing arrangement, upon which would be a referendum on the South’s liberation, although in reality, the fighting continued throughout.

*In October 2007, the SPLA officially abandoned the(purported) national unity government. At issue were claims that the National Congress (the ruling North) had violated the SPLA’s main tenets, the boundaries between the North and the South, and the division of oil resources.

· *In February 2008, a combination of government and janjaweed accelerated attacks in Darfur. In July 2008, the prosecutor from the International Criminal Court (ICC) indicted Al-Bashir with charges of genocide, and an arrest warrant was issued in March 2009. Regardless, an indictment for genocide was not handed down by the Court.

*July 2009 brought forward a verdict by The Hague,whereby the North was handed the lucrative Heglig oil field, the South won rights to Abyei’s large oil fields.

· *April 2010, Al-Bashir won 68% of the North’s vote, whereas Salvakir, head of the SPLA garnered re-election of the South, accruing 93% of the vote. As such, January 2011 brought forward a much anticipated referendum for the split, with Al-Bashir vowing to honor its results. He did no such thing.

*July 10, 2011, SSLA speaker James Wani Igga declared ROSS independent. The United Nations followed suit, designating the ROSS its 193rdmember state. Nonetheless, since its independence, the North has waged massive air attacks on the South, with an acute refugee and food crisis as a result.

· Currently the North and South are on the brink of full scale civil war over its borders. The AfricanUnion has given the 2 sides 3 months to resolve its border and oil issues.

While geo-political and moral imperatives often overlap, one can, and should, clearly separate the two.

To wit, grave, multi-faceted strategic dangers foretell what the outcome will be, if the North is allowed to subsume the South to Islamic rule. Succinctly, it is best summed up in the words of Islamist guru, Al-Turabi, who reportedly exhorted, “the South Sudan is like his ‘Iron Curtain’, if he could breakSouth Sudan, he would get militant Islamism all the way to Capetown”.

The western world is becoming increasing transfixed and rightfully alarmed over the bellicose boasts (as well as imperial aspirations of a resurrected Caliphate) of Islamic, Shariah-focused adherents. Nevertheless, due to PC mandates (self imposed by leadership, both elected and non-elected functionaries) western leaders adamantly refuse to identify the enemy. Thereby, Islamic-inspired barbarism has been relegated to a code of Omerta, silencing those who understand what is at stake, essentially muting the alarm bells to the general public.

Consequently, the benefits accrued to Islamists who seek none other than worldwide domination is not such a far fetched goal. The fear of being tarred an “Islamophobe” – a racist canard to silence the West – is so pervasive, it renders a world awash in Islamic bloodletting on the same immoral compass of identifying the “religion of peace”, as not so peaceful.

Such skewed equivalence places Al-Turabi and his fellow Islamists at a distinct advantage, leaving them to intuit that a restored Caliphate is theirs for the taking. In fact, according to President Obama (and his surrogates) the “War on Terror” has been won, thus making it even more difficult to name the (heretofore) unmentionable enemy.

Equally intrinsic (and an outgrowth of the West’s inability to identify said entity), an alarming violation of human/civil rights is evidenced and heroically recorded by Baroness Cox. Among other distinctions, she is Founder and CEO of Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART), documenting the North’s unrelenting aerial bombardment of the South. Moreover, one shudders to think what would take place if the North is in control of limitless revenues from the South’s oil fields, thus spreading their Islamic conquest farther afield.

The horrific outcome of the North’s unremitting aerial assault upon the South has elicited an untold humanitarian crisis. HART representatives visited the war-torn region from April 8-14, 2012, specifically; they traveled to Agok, Yida, Renk and Doro. Their findings included (but were not limited to):

* More than half a million are displaced refugees due to aerial bombardment. Khartoum utilizes MIGs, long-range missiles and helicopter gunships. Their targets are civilian in nature, and the body count is staggering. The refugees have been living in camps, caves infested with deadly snakes, and in the BlueNile forests. The advent of the rainy season will raise the

stakes to a catastrophic level.

* Credible reports have surfaced that Khartoum hasceased transport of supplies by air and water.

As evidenced above, the pernicious effect of “moral equivalence” between brutal, genocidal-intent aggressors with civilian resistance has wrecked havoc all over the globe. The British Government has painted the perpetrators from the North on the same moral plane with those they are assiduously targeting, thus placing the shameful onus upon the victims! This deleterious behavior not only confuses the general public, but adds to untold civilian death tolls, thereby lending encouragement to the North’s onslaught.

Additionally, South Sudan inherited a war in which 2 million died and 4 million were displaced. Its vital services for health care, education and general supplies are basically non-existent. Its basic infrastructure is wrecked, causing a near collapse in their ability to engage in any meaningful civilian life.

The continual non-addressing (by the international community) of core disputes, including border demarcation and oil revenues, serves as an insidious green light, a “causus belli”.

By turning a blind eye to the North’s continual pounding the international community gives its stamp of approval, effectively aiding their imposed outcome through submission.

Is it any wonder, many African Southerners (the North’s Muslim forces are intent on purging Africans from their midst) have asked: why has the West intervened in Libya (and elsewhere) but not in Khartoum, when the carnage in the South is that much greater?

Could it really be the case, Muslims deserve to live and Africans (mainly Christians) don’t?

12 thoughts on “Fungible Definition of “Who Is A Terrorist” Invariably Leads To Support of Islamists in Syria, Sudan & Elsewhere: When Politics/Ideology Trumps Morality…Embedded Policy Paper…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki”